Monday, October 29, 2007
For President in 2008
There is no question who I will vote for in next year's election for President.
The reason is simple! There is no Democratic candidate that deserves to be President of this country. Not one of the crowd. So I will vote for whoever is the candidate from the Republican Party, knowing that he will be many miles better than any Democrat. It is a no-brainer!
Most of the Dem candidates are to the left of reason, beneath common sense, and are liar's liars.
I do hope that Hillary gets the nomination, which seems likely at this point. She is the epitome of all I think disgusting about Dems, and will bring out the Republican voters in waves. None of the others deserve mention.
Labels: 2008 Election, Hillary
Thursday, October 25, 2007
On Death, Murder and Justified Killing
Death and Dying
To clarify the subject, I am not going to discuss normal or accidental death and dying, because that is part of the life and death process we all face. What I want to focus on here is deliberate killing and murder, whether it is in war, a criminal act, terrorist bombings, or executions.
That which the Bible proscribes is murder. No argument here.
However, there are such things as justified killings. In our society, we have by law authorized the justified killing or execution of criminals who have been convicted of murder, and a few other heinous crimes.
We have authorized killing in self-defense, although this has been under attack by the Left for years.
We have also justified the killing of terrorists and insurgents in combat, even though war has not been declared by Congress. Of course, once war is declared we have authorized killing and wounding of the enemy and their supporters in combat.
Interestingly, we have not authorized the killing or the torture of any identified captured enemy soldier during war, because we adhere to the Geneva Conventions. We have authorized interrogations that come close to torture, however.
But note that an insurgent or terrorist is not a soldier by the definition of the Convention. He does not wear a recognizable uniform or insignia that would identify him as a soldier. Even if he declares himself a soldier in some army or another, it does not matter. He is an “enemy combatant,” and is not accorded the rights of the Geneva Convention. Those who would give them such rights had just as soon give a convicted serial murderer the same rights: they are close brothers under the skin, with the exception that the serial murderer has been tried in a court of law. Since there is no Convention in force, we have elected to try such persons under the military justice system, and if convicted, they may be sentenced as the military court determines, up to and including justified killing or death.
This is all as it should be, in my opinion. Those who would change these justified killing provisions are merely obstructing justice, probably for their own benefit.
Now the big question comes! Who authorized us to murder 1.5 million babies a year, or over 40 million dead fetuses since RvW was passed? This is definitely not as it should be!
Labels: Death, Killing, Murder
Wednesday, October 17, 2007
Blogging for a Reason
A place to vent; a place to inform; a place to record.
It is a good thing that I had no ambitions for this blog, for it gets scant attention in a week. So why do it? Simple. I love to write down my opinions because it satisfies some inner sense of needing to ventilate what I think and feel with some precision. Blogging forces this discipline. Then too, quite often my opinions are that of the majority of Conservatives, so I am adding my wee voice to the general outcries we project for sanity, reason, and tradition. Further, it is a good way to record my occasional opinions and philosophies for future use, such as for the development of my philosophy statement.
I have not tried the various mechanisms for expanding my readership for several reasons. First, I do not want the blog to garner too much attention (no fear here!); second, I know that at least half the blog readers are leftist, which means nothing but ad hominem attacks, and zero probability of changing minds; third, another major segment of possible readers is already in my camp, so I am preaching to the choir (imperfectly and not very originally) which makes my comments quite redundant; and, finally, the so-called independents will also not be swayed by my rhetoric, I am sure--they have this streak of contrariness that they must defend, else their amoral stance will not survive. One can persuade by logic, but cannot overcome emotional attachment to ideas.
One more factor is that I treat what I want to treat, when I want to sit here typing, and do not want to be in the mode of reacting to every event in the news worth commenting upon. So I do not post regularly at all by choice. Blogs that I admire do post every day, or almost every day, and the successful ones in terms of hits make hits a religion, and many topics are selected as much for their challenge to readers to respond as is their intrinsic worth.
So that's how it is!
Labels: Blogging
Thursday, October 11, 2007
Fred Wins
In that there is really no comparison!
The 2008 election is shaping up to be a Republican victory. With Hillary the candidate of the left, and Thompson the candidate from the right, it is a double whammy on the Democrats. Not only is Hillary one of the most despised women in America, she is a chameleon that hides her far left and feminist ideology in order to seek votes. Thompson, on the other hand, comes across as the father figure we would like to have in the leader's role, definitely not a feminist, smart, and conservative.
Labels: 2008 Election, Comments on the day, Democratic, Hillary, Thompson
Monday, October 08, 2007
Torture Test
Torture
If you would condone torture in its most horrible state, then you would condone it in lesser torture states. The ultimate test has ever been the "Ticking Time Bomb Scenario", where you have a prisoner whose credentials and personal data indicate he would know of the location of a bomb about to explode. Time is of the essence, else a million citizens will probably be killed by the bomb, and more millions injured. Would you use any methods available to break this prisoner rapidly and save the millions of citizens, or not? Slick Willie said he would. This means he would most likely advise Hillary to do the same, were they in the White House again.
So what would you do?
The scenario has either occurred before or it hasn't. If it has, we may not know of it for many reasons. If it hasn't occurred before, that is no reason to say it won't occur in the future. If it does occur, then what will be the right response?
To call it made-for-TV or ignorant does not do away with this possibility at all. To say that it is false because the person would be able to hold out for long enough is to evade the question again. One does not know how long a subject can last in advance, especially against fiendish tortures of the past over days and days. Thus, that is no reason to avoid the question of: should we, or shouldn't we?
It does point to the sharpness of the question that some would try to sweep it under the rug with an ignorant flourish of their pen. So when it does appear, we won't react even so far as to consider the question! How very foolish, and how dishonest!
Labels: Torture
Saturday, October 06, 2007
A Muslim for President?
Would people support having a Muslim as President of the US?
Muslims would, of course. John McCain would not. Various bloggers have weighed in saying they would, including Right Wing Nuthouse. Frankly, the question never crossed my mind because it is so improbable. It does represent a challenge to our open society.
Muslims are signed up to Islam, and no government can come between a Muslim and his religious and secular commitments regarding Islam. Of these commitments, there is jihad, and the striving for Sharia (Islamic Law) and domination of Islam over the world. There is the question of ultimate loyalty to the US over Islam. There is the admonition in the Koran not to make friends of Jews and Christians. There is the permission in the Koran for a Muslim to lie, cheat, steal and kill infidels. Then there is the difficulty of getting to the truth of all these provisions in Islam for the person that is running for President. Can he be believed?
For the present, this is academic, but we have come very close with Barack Hussein Obama. Very close indeed. Too close for my money. He is a Democrat, so he would not get my vote in any case. But, suppose he was a full-fledged Muslim? I wonder how many would vote for him?
